Examine the interplay between the National Green Tribunal and constitutional courts in environmental governance, citing recent cases.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was set up under the NGT Act, 2010 to give effect to the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 [1]. It operates inside a judicial hierarchy headed by the constitutional courts. The two mostly work together, but their jurisdictions overlap, and recent cases are steadily settling the friction this causes.

Complementarity: courts strengthening the NGT

• Wider powers: In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (2021), the Supreme Court upheld the NGT's suo motu powers. It held that these powers do not depend on a formal petition [2].
• Constitutional validity: In MP High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court upheld the Act, including the direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 [3].
• Expertise: The NGT has expert members alongside judicial members [1]. This lets it take on technical disputes that would otherwise burden constitutional courts.

Friction: overlapping jurisdiction

• Writ jurisdiction survives: The same 2022 judgment held that Sections 14 and 22 do not remove High Courts' powers under Articles 226/227. It treated these powers as part of the basic structure, following L. Chandra Kumar (1997) [3].
• Parallel routes: Parties can therefore skip the statutory appeal and challenge NGT orders in a High Court. This risks conflicting rulings and delay.
• Pallikaranai marsh, Chennai: Developers, including CREDAI-Chennai, have challenged in the Madras High Court an NGT ban on construction within 1 km of this Ramsar wetland [4]. The Tamil Nadu State Wetlands Authority has proposed an interim Zone of Influence of 128.19 ha across 36 survey numbers. The hearing is adjourned to 11 November 2026 [4]. A constitutional court is thus reshaping an NGT-imposed blanket buffer into a site-specific line.

Way forward

• High Courts should use writ review sparingly, mainly for jurisdictional error or breaches of natural justice, so that Section 22 stays the main route.
• Strengthen NGT benches and fill vacancies, so litigants have less reason to look elsewhere.
• Courts should set time-bound, science-based outcomes, for example a deadline for the final Pallikaranai Zone of Influence based on detailed studies [4].

The NGT brings expertise and speed, and the constitutional courts bring legitimacy and a constitutional safeguard. With clear jurisdictional lines and judicial restraint, this overlap can work as a coherent two-tier system. Such a system would serve Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) and SDG 15.